Qantas inches closer to Boeing 787 order

That's the question that nags me. Where does the 787-9 fit in the fleet? A replacement for the 747 on routes to Johburgh/Santiago/Vancouver? There are options for 50, so that says they have grander plans in the longer term. Be interesting to hear from Alan Joyce what the intention is for this super aircraft.

They'll be here before 2017 for sure. Qantas is teasing.

At least they can make johburgh/santiago once a week, rather than the 3-4 times weekly

They could use 789s for flights to SFO, YVR, SEA, FRA, BER, CDG and extra flights into Asia.

If you were going to put them onto new routes, I would say expand services out of secondary Australian ports first (Perth, Adelaide, Canberra) to the major Asian cities like Singapore, Hong Kong, Dubai etc rather than new (relativly obscure) overseas destinations.

I'd like to see them flying direct from Melbourne to Kansai & Tokyo

I would be happy to see any type of QF plane out of Perth ! I still cannot figre out why Qantas dropped Perth from it's routes when Asia is one of our largest trading partners and an obviosu stop over point on the way to Europe for those of us who do not want to go via Dubai etc. SQ ans CX must be rubbing tghere hand together!

Peter you basically answered your own question. Singapore (and Hong Kong) are hub posts, not for Qantas but for SQ and CX respectivly.

Once Qantas rerouted Syd and Mel/LHR via DXB they lost any passengers hubbing through SIN from places like Perth. As a destination only there are not enough passengers to fill a daily A330 (hence rumours about a daily 737-800) flight.

Now I understand , so basically when the deal was done with Emirates Qantas were ok about loosing pax out of PER to SIng and Hong Kong to SQ and CX ( collateral damage) The only thing I guess they could not calculate is the damage they have done to loyal ADL and PER customers who were that dilsalusioned that they have moved all their custom including domestic flights to competitors. I would have thought  2 or 3 times a week with an A330 would have been viable but I guess the logistics might have put them off . Seems weird to me that Qantas have invested lots of dollars into lounges and extra flights to Sing and HK out of  MEL and SYD but cannot make PER flights work for them? 

 Fonga, do remember that when Qantas ordered these the plan was:

 788's to Jetstar.

When 789 came online (which when ordered was meant to be 3-4 years later), the 789's would go to Jetstar, with the 788's in the JQ config (read what would have been Qantas domestic) to then come to Qantas to replace the 767's DOMESTICALY.

Of course lots of water under the bridge and plans changed etc, but just don't assume beacuse they have so many options, that the plan they originally had still stands. Bottom line is who knows what the plan is, but for sure it isn't the plan when first ordered.

All well and good, except the 787 is not a 747 replacement. The aircraft may have equal range, but seating wise it is more the size of a 767-300 (788) or a 767-400 (789) than a 747. Whilst the fuel savings may be immense, to carry the same number of passengers would require more aircraft, more crew, more landing fees etc al of which goes someway to offset any fuel savings.

Now Qantas of course does need a 747 replacement, the nearest thing to that is actually the A350-1000 (around 80-100 seats short) or 777-300ER or 777-8X/9X.

The A350-1000 is available now, so would make sense and fit in with the A330 and A380 from a crew perspective. As for the 777-300ER yeah it would work, but as Qantas doesn't have any 777's now, you would think it would be better to wait and order the 777-8X or 777-9X. Though of course the latter would run the risk of delays similar to what they have experianced with the 7late7 and of course the A3latey.

But getting back the the 789, considering Qantas are upgrading the cabins on the A330's, we can assume they are not going anywhere soon (now before someone says they upgraded the 767's only to get rid of them, this was a minor cosmetic change and was only intended as a stop gap), so anyway begs the question where would Qantas use 789's. I mean to say even under their original plan, Jetstar were to eventually get the 789's and the 788's were to be used by Qantas as 767 replacements domestically.

I believe you can just double the route offering and that should be a bit above the 747 but the overall cost and slots will be more than the 747.

Exactly. Lots of fixed costs per aircraft.

I thought the A380 was the replacements for the B747?

 Nope, they never ordered enough for that to be the case. They did however order the A380 to replace SOME 747's. 

But look at the fleet now, there are still around 12 (maybe a few less depending upon recent retirements) 747's in the fleet with no clear replacement annouced.

On the basis of 12, they have 3 that never received cabin upgrades and they are over 20 years old, built in 1993 (-OEB) 1990 (OJI) and 1991 (OJM). Whilst another 3 non ER's are newer, being 1999/2000 builds, they will need to be replaced in the next 5-7 years with the 6 ER's not far behind being 2002/2003 builds.

I have said for some time that the A350-1000 seemed to be a better fit in routes to replace the 747 than the 787. Higher ETOPS out of the box would be of benefit to QF here? 

Agree, though would think the higher capacity (closer to 747 size) is more important than an out of the box ETOPS rating. Not many of Qantas flights need a long ETOPS rating. Even flights to the US work on 180 minutes.

Plus the A350 shares a cockpit commonality with A380 cockpit so it saves costs for training management.

I am pretty sure most A380 pilots have flown the 747, I don't know if there is even a need for training, other than the need to get used to the other new aircraft systems.

A330 to A350 is a two week training course and afterwards pilots can hold certifications to fly both aircraft. 

747 to and Airbus aircraft is a much longer course (24 days) plus they can then only be certified in one type. Eg not possible to go from 747 to A330/A350 and one day fly the 747 then an A350 the next. But if you have dual A330/A350 certification you can fly one one day and the other the next.

On paper it seems like a good being it to have but in reality maybe not do much. 

QF (and VA) can not use a twin jet for Australia-Southern Africa/South America flights unless CASA allows better then ETOPS 180.

The requirement that VA fly a ETOPS 180 path caused their MEL-JNB flights to be up to 3 hours longer then the QF and SA AU-JNB flights.

It's actually not an ETOP's issue, it what CASA calls EDTO and applies equally to 4 engined aircraft. Though of  course the end result does look like an ETOP's restriction when it comes to twins. But slight difference. Also only applies to Australian operators from what I understand.

Interestingly though CASA have just (Jan 2015) amended the rules, but not sure if that would make it more viable for twin operations to JNB and the like.

I understand that LAN will be operating 789s on Sydney - Santiago later this year.  I hadn't appreciated that QF could be prevented from doing the same.

Yep, and it was also the reason why Virgin Australia dropped JNB. These restrictions added extra time to the routing which made it unviable.

CASA's Civil Aviation Advisory Publication 82-1(1), released in January, basically opens the way for the approval of aircraft & engine combinations, including twin-turbine aircraft, to undertake Extended Diversion Time Operations (EDTO) with a maximum diversion time above 240 minutes with one engine inoperative. The document alos provides the basis for CASA approval of polar area operations. So the 787 could be a candidate for Qantas flights to South Africa and South America.

Himeno - they can if they took the A350 instead. Has much better ETOPS than the 787.

The A359 has Euro ratings for ETOPS 370...smashing any need for re-routing restricted by 180 ratings.

The 787 has been cleared for ETOPS 330 I think by the FAA only.

cdinoz ETOPS certification is a maximum certification for that aircraft. It is still up to individual regulators to certifiy airlines for ETOPS operations. CASA does this through their EDTO rules. These rules are what has made it hard/not cost effective for Virgin Australia to fly the 777 to JNB.

I've read that QF have incredible pricing on these jets from being a launch or soon after customer. But that this pricing will expire soon. Is this correct? So how much time do they have to place an order at the discounted price?

You should know that only two airlines have chosen eight abreast seating, those two being ANA and JAL.

No other airline to date has chosen the eight abreast seating arrangement with everyone else opting for the nine abreast arrangement, these include major airlines such as: QR,EY,BA,UA,NZ,AA,VS,AC,CZ,BI

I read somewhere that QF planned 275 seats for their 789 seating,  so by that plan it's 9 abreast

Qantas never had plans for the 789. The only plan ever advertised was the 788's were to go to JQ, then when the 789 became available the new 789's would go to JQ and Qantas domestic would get the 788's as the 767 repacement. Qantas never annouced any plans to operate the 789.

And Hong Kong too...

What, operating SYD-SIN-DXB? :P

no no SYD/SIN/LHR

no no SYD/SIN/LHR

Gets back to the fact that the 787 is not actually a very large aircraft. The two versions out now are basically the same size as the 767-300 and 767-400. In fact except for the nose and wing they are hard to tell appart.

The other day I was in BKK I saw a Transero 767 and a Thai and Royal Jordanian 787 all lined up next to each other and from the back it was a struggle. Only looking at the wing and engine gave it away.

Of course the 787 is no 767 by a long shot, but size wise pretty close, meaning of course the livery may well look a bit more compressed than on something a bit bigger.

and the exhaust, 787 that has metal bit :)

Hopefully they learnt something from their competitor across the ditch, you could maybe have an all red plane with some nice Qantas font and a Kangaroo in white, with an Aussie touch of course. 

Oh and a new Sydney-Seoul service. Maybe also for Melbourne but I won't expect it.

And Qantas had plans of going to Delhi Mumbai and Seoul a while ago so I think that's what they will be doing.

Boeing 787 isn't a magic aeroplane that will fly you everywhere.  It depends on factors like market demand/economics/possible load factors and a whole range  of others.  To get back to flying to UK via Singapore,  that could only occur once the current QF/Emirates partnership expires.  And logically speaking I don't see an economic advantage for QF to fly via SIN again since its partnership with Emirates allows passengers a variety of destinations to Europe and North Africa in one stop. 

Too right, South East Asia, for Australians is better suited as a hub into Asia. Gets back to why Qantas was looking at setting up their own full servers Asian airline. Though I am still at a loss to understand why, having sponsored MH into OneWorld Qantas hasn't started flying to KL and feed into MH Asian network. Of course the events of the last year have rightly or wrongly put the MH brand in the wrong light, but these decisions were made well before.

I certainly agree Mark :)

which is what i suggested initially

which is what i suggested initially

A340 is a fuel-hog, but yes it's the next thing best to putting a 747 or A380 on these routes. But if Lan can do this stuff why not Qantas, I think it should be fairer but oh well.